Selection Lab ranks candidates against a role-specific job profile. Each candidate receives a match score that shows how closely they fit the selected profile, and the individual assessment scores stay visible, including inside your ATS. This guide shows hiring managers how to verify which criteria drive a candidate's position in the ranking and how to document that for stakeholders.
Who it's for: hiring managers, recruitment managers and talent acquisition leads who need to explain a ranking to an interview panel, HR business partner or works council.
Prerequisites:
Time and difficulty: 15 to 25 minutes, intermediate.
One scope note. Selection Lab's published material describes the match score and the job profile comparison. It doesn't publish a scoring formula, so this guide doesn't assume one. You'll verify the ranking against what your account and your configured role show.
Selection Lab's process runs pre-screening, assessments, match per role, interview, evaluate. The ranking is produced at the "match per role" stage. That's where assessment results are compared with a tailor-made job profile. Transparency therefore means checking two things: which profile the candidate was matched against, and which assessments fed that match.
Checkpoint: you can state, in one sentence, which profile the ranking is measured against and which assessments are in the flow. If you can't, stop here and confirm the role setup with your Selection Lab contact.
Warning: don't compare candidates who completed different assessment flows. A ranking is only meaningful across candidates assessed against the same profile.
Record the score and the candidate's position in the list. You'll need both for the consistency test in step 5.
Divergences are the useful signal. Selection Lab uses candidate results to generate structured interview guides, so a gap in one criterion becomes a targeted interview question rather than a vague concern.
Checkpoint: every assessment contributing to the match should appear in the role's assessment flow from step 1. An unexpected assessment, or a missing one, means the profile or flow needs review.
Selection Lab integrates with the ATS, so recruiters can view the complete report and the individual scores there. For example, SmartChat answers can be shown directly in Recruitee.
Checkpoint: both surfaces show the same scores. This second surface is also where panel members who don't use Selection Lab will read the results.
Weighting determines how strongly each assessment influences the match. Check the setup before relying on it.
Warning: don't let any criterion carry zero influence by accident. If a criterion is in the assessment flow but doesn't affect the ranking, either remove it from the flow or change the profile. Candidates spend time on every assessment.
Troubleshooting:
This gives HR business partners and procurement a traceable answer to "why is this candidate ranked first?"
Auditability matters because Selection Lab states it is aligned with the EU AI Act and GDPR compliant. Personal data is stored in Frankfurt, consent is requested per processing purpose, retention periods are established, and local LLMs remove personal information from conversations. Your documentation shows the human side of the same discipline. For more detail, read the guide to ethical and compliant AI hiring, and see Selection Lab's ethical policy for governance principles. Candidates should also know how AI is used, covered in communicating AI use to candidates.
If every item is ticked, you can explain a candidate's rank from the profile, the assessments and the weighting. Next, repeat the consistency test on your highest-volume role and add the result to your standard hiring documentation.
Selection Lab ranks candidates against a role-specific job profile. Each candidate receives a match score that shows how closely they fit the selected profile, and the individual assessment scores stay visible, including inside your ATS. This guide shows hiring managers how to verify which criteria drive a candidate's position in the ranking and how to document that for stakeholders.
Who it's for: hiring managers, recruitment managers and talent acquisition leads who need to explain a ranking to an interview panel, HR business partner or works council.
Prerequisites:
Time and difficulty: 15 to 25 minutes, intermediate.
One scope note. Selection Lab's published material describes the match score and the job profile comparison. It doesn't publish a scoring formula, so this guide doesn't assume one. You'll verify the ranking against what your account and your configured role show.
Selection Lab's process runs pre-screening, assessments, match per role, interview, evaluate. The ranking is produced at the "match per role" stage. That's where assessment results are compared with a tailor-made job profile. Transparency therefore means checking two things: which profile the candidate was matched against, and which assessments fed that match.
Checkpoint: you can state, in one sentence, which profile the ranking is measured against and which assessments are in the flow. If you can't, stop here and confirm the role setup with your Selection Lab contact.
Warning: don't compare candidates who completed different assessment flows. A ranking is only meaningful across candidates assessed against the same profile.
Record the score and the candidate's position in the list. You'll need both for the consistency test in step 5.
Divergences are the useful signal. Selection Lab uses candidate results to generate structured interview guides, so a gap in one criterion becomes a targeted interview question rather than a vague concern.
Checkpoint: every assessment contributing to the match should appear in the role's assessment flow from step 1. An unexpected assessment, or a missing one, means the profile or flow needs review.
Selection Lab integrates with the ATS, so recruiters can view the complete report and the individual scores there. For example, SmartChat answers can be shown directly in Recruitee.
Checkpoint: both surfaces show the same scores. This second surface is also where panel members who don't use Selection Lab will read the results.
Weighting determines how strongly each assessment influences the match. Check the setup before relying on it.
Warning: don't let any criterion carry zero influence by accident. If a criterion is in the assessment flow but doesn't affect the ranking, either remove it from the flow or change the profile. Candidates spend time on every assessment.
Troubleshooting:
This gives HR business partners and procurement a traceable answer to "why is this candidate ranked first?"
Auditability matters because Selection Lab states it is aligned with the EU AI Act and GDPR compliant. Personal data is stored in Frankfurt, consent is requested per processing purpose, retention periods are established, and local LLMs remove personal information from conversations. Your documentation shows the human side of the same discipline. For more detail, read the guide to ethical and compliant AI hiring, and see Selection Lab's ethical policy for governance principles. Candidates should also know how AI is used, covered in communicating AI use to candidates.
If every item is ticked, you can explain a candidate's rank from the profile, the assessments and the weighting. Next, repeat the consistency test on your highest-volume role and add the result to your standard hiring documentation.
